Pious Hate-mongers

Yes, they're at it again.

Is anyone else out there as sicken and utterly disgusted by the appallingly thoughtless and uncaring actions of this group of "Christians"--and bearing in mind the number of truly good, kind, and caring Christian folk here at this forum I use that word very loosely with regard to those featured in the above article--who are, once again, causing havoc and heartbreak for the friends and families of a deceased person.

I tell you, I would just find it so satisfying, on behalf of all those who've been effected by their stupidity and ignorance, to slap the stupid smug grin off that hate-mongering bitch in that photograph. In fact the only thing that would stop me, if I were there, would be a fear that such a hideously vile sickness may be contagious and I just couldn't risk being infected by such abhorrent, loathsome, and repugnant evilness.

How can they possibly presume to know that God approves of the terrible hurt they cause? How did they get to be so delusional? And, why do some people have so very little respect and understanding for those who are different from themselves?

Fine they don't approve of homosexuals. I don't mind. I don't care. I don't go sticking my nose in other people's private affairs. I just wish they didn't either.

Alex hon, could ypu find another article on this story? The news story you linked seems to have been lifted off the page (it says "article has expired" - can't be pressurizing from some jerk Reverend towards msn news can it?)

I'm really not surprised at the vile insanity of some "Christians" since the U.S. Rev. Fred Phelps ran his campaigns proclaiming God Hates Sweden because of the option to register as a couple for gays and lesbians here. Phelps, among other things, claimed the five hundred Swedes who were killed in the 2004 Sumatra tsunami represented the Lord God's vengeance on the country for condoning homosexuality.

Should be ok now, louise... well, you should be able to view the article at any rate.

The article doesn't name him but, yes, it's Fred Phelps and his deluded and moronic followers who are behind it. And, I refused to call him Reverend or Pastor, or anything else that would indicate he's a religious man, because I know he's not; therefore I don't believe he deserves it or should be allowed to use any such title of a respected clergyman.

I had no problems viewing it. Try again

AS for what Alex says, I'm with her all the way. If Ledger is in Hell as those Christian fascists have decided*, I hope he's keeping some place nice and warm for when they join him.

TYWD

* Judge not that ye be not judged - now who said that?

People like this use religion to justify their hatred just drive me nuts. Anything they feel like doing or saying, it's all right because "God told them to do it."

Just once I'd like to see someone walk up to one of them, say, "God says you're wrong and he told me to do this," then punch them right in the nose. Probably wouldn't do much good, but it would make some people feel better.

And quoting bible verses at them won't help, either. They'll come back with something like, "Suffer not a witch to live." And guess who gets to decide who's a witch?

And they want to take our guns away when they should be declaring open season on assholes like those in the article.

What kind of Christian thinks picketing the funerals of people like Matthew Shepard with signs that read "God Hates Fags" is compatible with Matthew 22:36-39 ("Which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.')

One positive note, although it has not actually served to stop this waste of carbon matter. A father, whose son was killed in Iraq took the Church to court for unspecified damages after members demonstrated at the March 2006 funeral of his son, Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder. They held signs at the funeral reading "Thank God for Dead soldiers."

In November, the jury awarded $2.9 million in compensatory damages, $6 million in punitive damages for invasion of privacy and $2 million for causing emotional distress. The church and three of its leaders — the Rev. Fred Phelps and his two daughters, Shirley Phelps-Roper and Rebecca Phelps-Davis — were found liable for invasion of privacy and intent to inflict emotional distress.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warbaby1943

And they want to take our guns away when they should be declaring open season on assholes like those in the article.

---

Hmmm ... I'm vacillating ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warbaby1943

And they want to take our guns away when they should be declaring open season on assholes like those in the article.

---

LOL! I had the same thought but restrained myself. ThisYouWillDo and I had a rather heated discussion about guns in an earlier thread and I didn't want to bring that issue up again.

It wasn't me, TYWD! Honest!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Euryleia

One positive note, although it has not actually served to stop this waste of carbon matter. A father, whose son was killed in Iraq took the Church to court for unspecified damages after members demonstrated at the March 2006 funeral of his son, Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder. They held signs at the funeral reading "Thank God for Dead soldiers."

In November, the jury awarded $2.9 million in compensatory damages, $6 million in punitive damages for invasion of privacy and $2 million for causing emotional distress. The church and three of its leaders — the Rev. Fred Phelps and his two daughters, Shirley Phelps-Roper and Rebecca Phelps-Davis — were found liable for invasion of privacy and intent to inflict emotional distress.

---

Finally! I'd been wondering why no one had tried that before. I couldn't imagine a jury NOT granting damages in this kind of case. Good for them!

Of course, I doubt they'll ever collect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

LOL! I had the same thought but restrained myself. ThisYouWillDo and I had a rather heated discussion about guns in an earlier thread and I didn't want to bring that issue up again.

It wasn't me, TYWD! Honest!

---

Actually, I meant maybe I should come round to your way of thinking ...

Just for these people, mind!

I actually had the privilege of seeing Phelp's group in action last July. The ONLY reason I claim it as a privilege is because had it not been for them I probably wouldn't have had such a meaning experience as I did witnessing the hundreds of riders who turned out to protect the solider's family and the display of patriotism and Christian love that followed. It was simply amazing and very emotional. I cried the entire way through. (See this thread for a description of the experienced.)

So, although I don't have a lot to truly add to this thread I do fully agree that "Christians" is not a word I would use for this group... heck even the word "human" would be pushing it imho.

this is so much bullshit. i leave for the navy in 5 months and my freind leaves for the army in 1. both of us know some fine oustanding people who are, by chance, homo-sexuals. my favorite singer is gay for Christ's sake. these people need to shut up. if not i pray God makes them shut up.

MMmmmm, I am of the belief that we are all entitled to our opinion as long as you do not hurt others with it. I understand they are usually non-violent but I see they do cause mental hurt. Unfortunatley if we stopped all physcological anguish we would not be a very 'free' society.

So a difficult one. I do not agree with their stance or the way they choose to show their opposing views. However I, with great sadness have to say they should (and this really sticks in my throat) should have the right to express that opinion and with the protection so they can do so unmolested. (I really hate I am saying this). To use derogatory language to refer to them would in essence make me just like them so I think we should give them as little publicity as possible and leave them to their rather waster efforts. Seems the publicity and feeling they stir drives them on to a degree above that of their 'faith'.

It seems to me that often the most unchristian folk can often be the christians.

Dragon

You do have a point, Dragon. They should be allowed to say what they wish to say, however moronic. The thing is, not what they say, but how and where they say it. Let them say it in their churches, where they will have a sympathetic audience, without troubling the rest of the world.

In USA, freedom of speech is paramount: it's one of the liberties they fought for and are proud of. If it causes offence, then that's unfortunate for the person who is offended, but, as American citizens, those "Christians" are entitled, as to express those opinions (within limits - i.e., no sedition, etc.)

In UK we have a slightly different view: you may only say what you like so long as you do not interfere with anyone else's right of peaceful enjoyment. Personally, I prefer this position and I would recommend it to our American cousins. The distinction is a fine one, and I feel that behaviour such as picketing and disrupting a funeral service is cruel, un-Christian, un-American and should be stopped by the authorities to prevent breaches of the peace.

TYWD

I've got a lot of opinions on people moralising and trying desperately to prove their own moral superiority over others. As all Christians in the media I've seen always come across as. And everybody I've ever met wearing it like a badge.

But I don't think that is what Westborough Baptist church are about. I think they're just plain crazy. I do think their insanity is held under the arms by non-radical Christians, and has given them an outlet. Which isn't the fault of the Christian society either. This is just what happens when ideas get popular. The crazy people get their own crazy interpretation.

I've read a bit about them and as far as I can tell, that Church is just one family. Probably one or two vocal voices and the rest maybe not crazy, but enough of being outsiders from the rest of society to value the security of being part of that group.

Have you seen any of the interviews with that lady spokesperson.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UMP3AK5jwo

See her eyes. She's got crazy eyes. Being insane is an illness and quite a handicap in life. I'm not going to judge her or them for it. It's a shame. But I think it would a disservice to both us and them to take them seriously. Above all it would simply be a waste of time to get worked up about it. These people are on a different planet in a different dimension. It's not really a popular movement spreading the lands in USA is it? If they annoy you just pretend like they're talking about another planet. Let your fantasy work in your favour :)

edit: it can also be seen from the opposite side. They're not the craziest so the attention they get need to be analysed to. Because they do get plenty of attention. Are these the people we love to hate? Christians might love to hate them because it affirms their religious interpretation and their own moral stance. Atheists love to hate them because to them they represent Christians/religious people. And we're loving to hate them here aren't we? Loonies are important for us, since they allow us to affirm our sense of being a group, by not being them. We are us, the non-Westborough baptist church in the world, and we've got better morals haven't we? But of course, the truth is that we have no idea if we share any other moral values, but we still get a sense of sharing and belonging.

Quote:

---

We've had a lot of nutty people on this show over the years. You are as mean and as sick and as cruel as anybody that I've ever had on this programme, and the fact that you use religion to justify your hatred this way is ... frankly, it's mind-numbing.

---

Unfortunately, I think she won that exchange. But nevertheless, she showed her true colours, and that was the point of the interview: sunlight is the best disinfectant.

TYWD

We're entering a new age of conservatism, as I see it.

Yesterday we had one of our Federal MPs talking about the unsuitablity of clothing on some young girls. That brought a bunch of people out of the woodwork, ringing ABC talkback on the radio.

One woman went on for 5 min without drawing breath- about 'girls wearing short skirts & midriff tops' etc etc. These are girls 5-9 years old.....

I was tempted to ring up & suggest that she get some counselling for whatever happened to her when she was that age. :rolleyes:

On a personal note, one of our (ex) friends is a religious zealot- she dresses her kids like something from 'Little House On The Prairie,' keeps them on the farm & even does home schooling. She's known throughout the district as being violent & abusive- but of course that's OK, because she goes to church.

The fact that she's known to be a victim of child abuse herself, & sees a psychiatrist would have nothing whatsoever to do with it.

The verse escapes me but Christ himself warned of "wolves in sheeps clothing." Except these fuckers don't seem to even bother with the disguise. If they were here they'd have cross hairs overlapping their bigotted foreheads.

For those animal lovers like me I apologise for comparing them to wolves, perhaps jackals would be more appropriate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir_G

The verse escapes me but Christ himself warned of "wolves in sheeps clothing." Except these fuckers don't seem to even bother with the disguise. If they were here they'd have cross hairs overlapping their bigotted foreheads.

For those animal lovers like me I apologise for comparing them to wolves, perhaps jackals would be more appropriate.

---

Aren't jackals animals to?